Ford v. Simms
This text of Ford v. Simms (Ford v. Simms) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2420
BARBARA JEAN FORD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
STUART O. SIMMS, Secretary, Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; STATE OF MARYLAND; GEORGE KALOROUMAKIS, Assistant Warden of Eastern Correctional Institution; RALPH LOGAN, Warden, Baltimore City Detention Center; EDMUND O’LEARY, Division of Corrections, Internal Investigative Unit Headquarters; DALE MCCLOUD, Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; LAURA RIEKEN DORSEY, Eastern Correctional Institution,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 99-3580-JFM)
Submitted: June 23, 2003 Decided: July 8, 2003
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robin R. Cockey, COCKEY, BRENNAN, & MALONEY, P.C., Salisbury, Maryland, for Appellant. J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Scott S. Oakley, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Barbara Jean Ford appeals the district court’s orders denying
her motion to amend her complaint and granting Appellees’ motion
for summary judgment on one Title VII claim following a remand from
this court. See Ford v. Simms, 2001 WL 1598078 (4th Cir. Dec. 14,
2001) (No. 00-1649) (unpublished). We find no error in the district
court’s orders and affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. See Ford v. Simms, No. CA-99-3580-JFM (D. Md. Apr. 9, 2002,
and Oct. 31, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ford v. Simms, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ford-v-simms-ca4-2003.